I would throw things over that. This? Not so much.
We promoted the guy, for as little as two weeks or as much as the rest of his career. If he gets demoted again in 2 weeks (or a month, or whatever), so what? If he stays and succeeds, well Jack knew what he was bringing up. If he stays and fails Montero-style for a year and a half then it will obviously all be because of this... but I wouldn't consider that the odds-on option here.
I've said I wouldn't have done it, but that doesn't mean it won't work to both our immediate benefit and our future benefit. Jack has the coaches with him every day. I've seen him just a handful of times. A lot of people making this judgment about the move have seen him never. Who's in a better position to know what his problems are and what might be used to address those problems?
Putting him with Shoppach and Ibanez couldn't possibly help him? C'mon. You know who the most veteran, active players are on that Tacoma roster? Corey Patterson and Scott Savastano, both of whom are terrible. What's Scott gonna teach him, how to keep a bench warm? Scott's not Crash Davis, and Patterson plays a position and role pretty much diametrically opposite from what Zunino is.
Know who #3 is? Carlos Peguero. Who here thinks Peguero has any secrets to impart to Zunino?
If you think he hasn't worked out his plate problems yet, maybe it's just that the advice he's hearing from coaches isn't resonating with him, and different coaches or vets might help. If you think he'll be fine, then you should promote him.
------------------
I was an advocate for holding him down til August just to build his database against lesser pitches and figure out to lay off out-of-zone pitches with them first. But maybe there's no sense of danger for him there - he's still slugging .500 in AAA even after this extended period of struggle.
This is the purpose of coaches and GMs: to figure out the right environment to promote learning and growth. If the problem with too many of our prospects has been leaving them to figure it out on their own, then why are we complaining that they're moving him around to get him different instruction and experience?
*shrugs* Like I said, I wouldn't have done it this way but I'm not setting myself on fire over it. If he pulls a Posey and goes all 130 OPS+ on the league the next 3 months, who's gonna look dumb then?
Just let it play out. Even if he struggles that doesn't necessarily make it the wrong move. Patience and humility are two qualities I find sorely lacking in back-seat drivers and internet know-it-alls.
At least Wedge hasn't called us all failed 9 year old baseball players again yet.
~G
.
These days, I try to limit my baseball reading. As far as sites that offer opinion, in any significant amount, it's pretty much down to five:
- Bill James' site
- Geoff Baker's site
- Spec's blog (found at seattlesportsinsider.com)
- Gordon's blog (see above)
- Guest Post blog (see above)
You don't want your blog to turn sour. Coughlin's Fourth Law: bury the dead. They stink up the joint.
;- )
But we gather from Geoffy's site that the peanut gallery has been tearing Zduriencik a new earhole for calling up Mike Zunino -- as, of course, they'd been baring their fangs about any "premature" callup of Nick Franklin.
What's going on here? What could be so emotional about this subject?
.
Mortgaging the Future
Ostensibly, the usual line is that the GM is "mortgaging the future" when it makes ANY short-term move that might battle for today, if that season has been deemed a writeoff by the blogs.
Even taking it on the blogs' own terms, that you should have surrendered at the gate long ago? ... in this specific case the outrage is senseless.
The first thing that Zduriencik said about Zunino is that --- > "The one thing you can never give a AAA player, is a sense of how fast the game is up here." Capt Jack indicated that he believes it will be the best thing in the world for Zunino, if he gets a taste of the majors, then goes back down to AAA and consolidates.
I can't imagine how this process would infuriate ANYbody. To me it has always seemed the completely natural one. Give a guy a taste, then let him go back to his corner, between rounds. Let him lick his wounds, let him think it over, and then come back at it freshly. Mike Carp. A thousand guys.
I don't believe this process is a good one; I think it is the best one. Not the only approach, not a one-size-fits-all approach, but the single best process. And it's Earl's process -- let a kid get a taste, and give him plenty of time to consolidate.
Where did the idea even come from, that you must not bring up a player until he is ready to star from Day One?
.................
Actually, however, that's not really what's going on. Not in my opinion. Dr. D can see how somebody would be sincerely angry about trading Mike Zunino for, say, two months' worth of Eduardo Perez or Ben Broussard. THAT would be hurting your org in a selfish bid to save your own skin.*
Sure, there is a cost associated with this callup -- or with any baseball move whatsoever. Let's not blow that cost out of proportion, and let's not minimize the benefits associated. (One benefit is simply that the Mariners needed the catcher. They were down to Zunino, and they called him up. The ML roster matters.)
Jack Zduriencik did not trade Mike Zunino for Aaron Harang here; he placed Zunino on the Mariner roster.
Calling up a hotshot prospect a little earlier than the blogs deem him ready? The downside to that is minimal, the upside clear, even IF the prospect humiliates himself. And he might not humiliate himself.
.
No Cheering In The Press Box
I had a brother who was an English Lit prof at an Ivy League university. Once I asked him, Which 18th-century writers have been the most useful to you in terms of life lessons?
He literally zoned out. He did not understand the question. Finally he said, "Oh, I'm not trying to apply them philosophically. I'm just cataloguing their ideas."
Later I ran across C.S. Lewis' quote about his colleagues... with lit profs, it would be considered unspeakably naive to ask how such authors could benefit them. As a result, they are as little nourished by literature as an illiterate orphan would be.
Most lit profs are obsessed with writing for their peers, with impressing their peers on how clever they are. They lose the ability to enjoy their subject, to be edified by it.
I haven't read Jerome Holtzman's No Cheering In The Press Box, but I am sure there was, some where at some time, a young sportswriter who watched an RBI single and started cheering -- to the contemptuous gazes of the Important Journalists sitting in the box with him.
..............
All these "More Objective Than Thou" ideas, that you can't let Jesus Montero catch, that you can't shoot for a pennant if you're not the favorite in March, that you can't call up a prospect based on the hope he'll impact your team ... they're all cousins to the same mindset.
Lit profs lead a sad existence, if you think about it. What should be a fertile oasis of intellectual nourishment becomes a dreary desert of lifeless bookkeeping, and it all began when they decided to speak only to their professional colleagues.
You know what? Those colleagues are never going to celebrate you anyway. They're too busy competing with you for accolades. It's all a dead end.
.............
Gentle SSI Reader, you have our blessing to hope that Mike Zunino lands with a splash. There's nothing wrong with enjoying baseball for its own sake.
Your friend,
Jeff
..............
*Nobody thought, at the time, that Cabrera or Choo were bright prospects.
Comments
Some guys' games completely change, when they step in against a racquetball Class A opponent. Great 'put G.
........
Very possible this will NOT be the key factor for Zunino, but also possible that it WILL. The early rampage, followed by later sloppiness, that's the classic Russian "dizzy with success" syndrome.
Could be.
It wasn't long ago you were talking about that and this is another case where a lot of bloggers just won't. I believe that the coaches have a better idea than I what a player is ready for. Anyone who doesn't and has much less access to the player than coaches and training staff is likely delusional.
It makes me wonder when all the SABR guys are arguing without the use of one statistic. Is it implied statistically, some studies I haven't read that if I don't know that's just proof I'm not L33t enough? Because the % of HOF players who went through that exact process doesn't support their argument? You'd think some statistic would, yet they're bringing none to the table...
that if Jack made a move to increase his job security it would not be to call Zunino up to the big club, but to keep him in Tacoma. He explains that exposing Zunino to possibly struggling at the MLB level could backfire if he indeed does struggle. Jack would be risking another question mark on his prospect record. Makes some sense to me. Having heard the org's explanation, I take them at their word, that when the Sucre injury hit they considered calling up Zunino but decided on Bantz because they didn't want to advance Zunino as a knee-jerk reaction. Having had some more time to consider the move and make their evaluations, they have decided to get Zunino his first MLB experience, which has value whether he struggles or not.
The fallacy is,
Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
The key word being "IS", in that last line.
This isn't a Philosophy 101 class, and nobody is arguing that Jack Zduriencik is reaching an inescapable logical conclusion. We are not reasoning deductively. We are trying to predict the future behavior of a single specimen within the species Homo Sapiens.
...........
As you implicitly acknowledge, Wishiker, there is such a thing as a Subject Matter Expert. Bloggers who react to every SME input by calling "Appeal To Authority!" have a bad problem with rhetoric and a worse one with attitude.
Good post mate.
GMZ & the M's Brass get a round of applause from me for exhibiting flexibility in this decision. Instead of bringing in another team's tired reject, they have chosen to promote Zunino early & see what the kid can do. Works for me - I can't wait to get a look at Zunino. I simply don't understand the vitriol on the other M blog sites against this call-up -- from their reactions, you would think that GMZ threw away the crown jewells.
That move tipped off their reluctance. ::cpoints::
I *do* think that, logically, keeping Zunino as an unblemished "Great Draft Pick Dude!" line on the resume would be theoretically ideal.
In the real world, I would cheerfully concede a certain Hail Mary element here, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The cost associated is not great.
Yeah, he's probably not ready. And if the other teams have any kind of scouting report on him he's not going to see anything anywhere neat the plate and will strike out in Liddi-Peguero proportions. I just can't muster any of the giddy optimism or self-righteous anger that I'm seeing elsewhere.
Dave's post on the mismanagement of the 40-man roster is pretty good, if a bit over the top. The M's are losing decent players due to the 40-man roster crunch and some of the roster moves that made that happen appear dubious in retrospect. And there appears to be more on the way. Carp, Kelly, Martinez & Catricala....who's next? Leutge? LaFrombois? Thames?
Totally agree. Kendrys Morales may see things. Raul, Morse, Ryan, Shoppach and others may only repeat something that coaches have been saying already and it sticks that time simply because the source is someone he's watched on TV. He could mature to advanced MLB bat quicker from having this experience sooner. The upside possibilities of the move are easy for me to see. The downsides don't seem likely with this particular prospect from multiple sources who have much more access than I. There's no guarantees, but my name will also not forever be attached to the success of that prospect. I think Zduriencik has a different perspective than it's easy for us to see.
It's not this move I'm jumping on, but if he's struggling extensively and there's no move. This was sooner than expected and I agree his bat is not ready. I've looked at his splits too and understand the work he needs to do to some extent. I meant promotion comparisons of aspects leading to higher failure or success when I said there's been no statistical arument I've run across...
And "Dave" has it calculated?
Each "draw at the deck," let us say the insertion of Nick Franklin into the Safeco lineup, has an extremely complex set of benefits and costs attached. Zduriencik has been drawing at the deck rather vigorously, and is running into situations that require him to Move On with respect to Carp, Kelly, etc.
Any good org has cast off a lot of talent that is starring for other orgs, as Kelly is (a little bit) now.
.................
Yes it's going to get worse. That is fundamentally due to "incorrect" roster management, or due to a tsunami of exciting talent that has to be sorted out and sorted before the winning begins?
My biggest 30,000-foot-view question is, what role does a fairly decent player have within this tsunami? Aren't the Mariners shooting for players who are superior to Casper Wells in any case? Perhaps Zduriencik is drawing through the deck looking for Rickie Weekses and Ryan Brauns. From where I sit it's reasonable for him to take draws, looking for gold rather than bronze. So what is the cost of discarding bronze?
It's not the debate that offends me. It's the usual condescending professor-grades-undergrad-student-Zduriencik tone. This coming from a source that has no idea of the scope of the problems.
...........
Excellent post though, Grizz, as always. :daps:
glossed over cost associated with acquiring said Catcher from waivers which brings the loss of someone who wasn't going to fit and possibly was receiving less outside interest than others as well to less overall. I agree with the 40 man crunch to an extent, but I doubt they forgot that as a group in the front office either. The guy was going to come up eventually although we really don't know what they'll do until they do it. That's the thing. Too many people so certain of the future...
I agree with all that you're saying. It's a question to me what weight should be put on keeping players we can't use as well as what interest they've gotten in each player from other orgs.
Not just to blow my horn, but remember our discussion earlier where we agreed that JackZ's toughest task of his "reign" was going to be sorting this Tsunami out - well, it's here and it's going to be complex (Bantz up, Bantz DFA, Bantz back to Tacoma?), but so far, all the guys we lost have less potential than Smoak, who I consider the baseline-marginal-needs_to_improve_to_stay guy (Though Carp has performed better at this point, I, for one, still think Smoak has more upside). Peguero - is he more valuable than Smoak? How about Thames? And then there's Morban and Fernandez vs. Almonte and Walker. Bay vs. Romero.
Roster management is extremely hard and will result in mistakes. But the time has, in fact, come. Fun times ahead. I expect weekly apoplexy attacks on the 'net from here on out, and that each week we'll have a new "fireable" offense. JackZ might be fortunate over the next few months that the guy who would fire him cares far less about winning or prospect development than just about any managing partner in baseball! :-) !!!
Or whatever floating jobless catcher as a way to protect Zunino in the minors and therefore, like some cheezy time travel movie, Preserve The Future!, seems as inherently harmful as it does helpful. The fact is, the Mariners' pitchers have to get to know the new catcher, whoever he is. They have to teach him their pitches, develop a rapport with him, throw bullpens with him. Bat just mentioned something in his article about the idea of a catcher catching a mechanical flaw in his pitcher's delivery. Chris Snyder isn't going to know what to look for, and whether he would learn doesn't matter because he certainly wouldn't be part of The Future. Zunino won't know that stuff either, but his learning it is of real value, as the pitching staff is filled with guys he'll be spending the next several seasons with, many of whom he hasn't had much opportunity to catch in the minors. Chris Snyder spending 2 weeks with the team is a distraction, and probably a depressing one considering he would probably be looking forward to a DFA before the end of the month.
Adding Mike Zunino is productive, if nothing else he'll have a better idea how Felix's pitches move, what Charlie Furbush feels comfortable throwing when he's down 2-0, how to catch Hisashi Iwakuma's shuuto. So, really, when the move is Mike Zunino, somebody who is less ready, or a pro catcher without a job, selecting a half-ready Mike Zunino is the better move for the future.
All call-ups are not equal TO THAT PLAYER.
The circumstance around any call to the Majors is a significant variable for how that player views the move.
A call up in May after you've been hitting .930 in Tacoma for a month is typically a message the club believes you are coming up to stay. If they trade or waive somebody (or send somebody else down), to give you that chance, that speaks volumes, too.
But, when you KNOW that you are getting called up because of a string of injuries at a position, then you, as the player, are well aware that the "intent" of the move is to be a temporary fix. If the guys up are just on the DL, then it is likely you are aware of the ticking clock on your trip to the Show.
This, IMO, actually makes a world of difference in any potential "damage" as a result of the call.
If you KNOW when you fly into Seattle that you have a round trip ticket, then you also know, you are NOT expected to be a savior. You just won a 2+ week vacation to MajorsVille. You get one free chance to attempt to turn the guy on the DL into the next Wally Pipp. But, there is no "expectation" that you will do so.
You trade away Jaso and Olivo ... Montero KNEW that he was "expected" to thrive in 2013 before the season ever started. Ackley and Smoak also had pressures of expectation. How badly did this factor into their performance? One can only guess. But the numbers weren't great for any of them.
If Zunino struggles, he MEETS expectations. The bar is low, which may be the absolute best kind of circumstance for a kid to get his ears wet. (Anyone recall that Smoak has been consistently solid in September, after all the pressure of winning is gone?)
Playing in the Big is HARD. Having a chance to make your "first" trip up as pressure free as possible is such a major plus in player development, the entire game has a rule that allows you to do just that for an entire month of the season.
You know what this trip means? Zunino gets a low pressure chance to dip his toes in the water. It ALSO means, that he is pretty much guaranteed to return in September (assuming he returns to Tacoma in a couple of weeks).
You get TWO prospect development cycles out of your #1 prospect in a single year. This is not bad. This is a gift from the heavens that has vast potential to accelerate Zunino's overall development and almost no chance of stunting his growth - even if he is awful in this trip.
=========
Personal aside: When I was 13 I was a good pianist ... and had plenty of confidence in my ability. I was going to enter a 4-H Talent Show in a few months, so my mom went out and bought two pieces of music. The first, "Maple Leaf Rag" by Scott Joplin. Ragtime is a tough genre. Trust me. I sat down with complete confidence in my ability to sight read almost anything. After about 5 minutes of nightmarish failure, I went to my Mom and said ... "I think it's too hard. I don't think I can learn this." She said, "Well, I got a second piece, just in case, because I knew this would be tough." The second piece was "Bumble Boogie", which is "Flight of the Bumble Bee", except with a Boogie Beat going in the left hand.
After 3 minutes, I went to my Mom and said ... "Let me see that Maple Leaf one again."
I placed 1st at County, District ... and got to perform in the State Beta Club showcase playing "Maple Leaf Rag".
Eventually I learned Bumble Boogie as well.
But, it was utterly brilliant psychology from my Mom ... and the absolute perfect way to motivate a young kid with talent, but one who was both a little too lazy and a little too cocky at the time. No pep talk. No speeches about working harder. Just exposure to a couple of pieces of music that it was going to take time and effort to master.
I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions how my story folds into the Zunino arc.
If Zunino succeeds, excellent! If he struggles, bummer. Everyone says he struggles, goes back to AAA works on his game. Great, no problem.
Wait a minute........ Smoak and Ackley struggled for much longer than a couple weeks or months. It took hundreds and hundreds of AB's to send those guys back down to try and get right. Yes, my biggest worry about promoting Zunino now is that the M's WON'T send him back down if he's struggling. I can hear it now "He's the best we've got, need to stick with the kid". They've not shown a very deft touch in the past with struggling uberprospects, have they learned anything form Smoak and Ackley and to a lesser extent Montero?
In Seager's first taste he struggled and got sent down after 7 days - and Sucre coming off the DL sets a soft marker as well. So they CAN do it - whether they will (or have to) is to be seen. Fun times.
I thought Dave's post on USSM was pretty good. He always makes good points and his arguments are based on facts, so I always take him seriously. He's said before that the Mariners have become the least analytical organization in baseball when it comes to roster construction and I think the tone you hear is his immense frustration.
The 40-man is an issue. I expect a trade soon to clear out some spots. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they just release Gutierrez when he completes his current rehab.
I can type the name of a song and make it play, but piano -- no.
Know it was a typo, but don't want to take credit where not due.
Just after I read your comment the commercial came on with Mario Andretti taking a guy for a ride in a modified-to-2-seat Indy racer. The commercial shows how the ride looks to the guy (faster than he can focus) and how it looks to Mario (a gentle drive in the country). May Zunino get his focus quickly and learn that boogie beat!
This seasonhas been pretty brutal on the fan base. Would love to get possibly a roundtable take on the state of the M's fandom as it exists in the interwebs/radiowaves/paying audience.
I love baseball for it's extreme difficulty. Which sport has a more lopsided ratio of participants to professionals than baseball? Baseball players come in all shapes and sizes. They come from rich and poor countries alike. Baseball is democratic and enigmatic. It is unmerciful and just. Baseball is as interesting to the SABR community as it is to the season ticket holder.
I love this site because it celebrates everything I have come to really appreciate about baseball.
I don't need for the M's approach to be correct. I would simply prefer that they show the sport and their fans the kind of respect and support they so often seem to take for granted.
Rock on!
Y'know ... when I look at the Ms objectively, I actually see an organization that *IS* trying to be a winner. But, they have stumbled (for many various reasons, and not necessarily the same ones over time).
Here's the thing. Looking solely at W/L records . and post-season appearances
Seattle: Last post-season 2001 - Wins since then
93, 93 (so the last 90 win season was 2003).
2004-present
63 - crash
69
78
88 - 3 years of improvement
61 - crash again
85 - transient where W/L is waaaay over the -52 run differential
61
67
75 - 3 years of improvement
??
I see a team that *IS* trying to improve ... but has failed.
Compare this to KC and Pittsburgh
KC - last post-season was 1985 -- (won 92 games in 1989 ... sort of the like the Seattle 93 win seasons)
Since 1990 - 3 winning records ('91, '93 ... '03)
The real end to KC "trying" is pretty much 1993. That one 83 win season in 2003 was sandwiched between FOUR (4) 100-loss seasons, so even more transient a result than the 85 win season under Z. So, from 2002-2006 they lost 100 4 times in 5 years. Since then (2007-present)
69
75
65
67
71
72
??
Basically stuck on 70 wins per year. No real movement. (When Tampa first arrived they had a decade of sub-70 win seasons before new management came in.
Pittsburgh - last post season was 1992
Since 1992 Pittsburgh has NEVER won 80 games.
There is evidence that since 2010, they have actually starter "trying" to improve.
57
72
79
??
This is the only 3 year sequence of improvement by the Pirate franchise since '95-'97
================
The history *I* see is that from 2004-2008, the club TRIED to win ... focusing on player acquisition and leaning almost exclusively on imported players. That produced improvement for awhile, but eventually led to a legitimate payroll limitation they were unwilling to exceed AND an iminent (and IMHO predictable), catastrophic collapse.
From 2009-present, they have TRIED to win ... but this time, they abandoned the focus building almost solely from imported resources and BEGAN an actual program of gathering and developing prospects. Of course, pending arrival of any prospects, they were "forced" to rely on imported players, (but the vast majority were stop-gap rentals and were clearly NOT intended as potential multi-year solutions.
The results to date is an improving record in 2011 and 2012 (from the 2010 debacle), and uneven results this season, (but total wins for 2013 is still VERY much in flux).
Are they GOOD at developing talent? No. They didn't TRY to develop talent for almost a decade prior to this push.
I see several issues "Fandom" is ignoring. First and foremost, the "attempt" to improve is real and measurable and HAS ALREADY been seen in past results. The fact they did not succeed in getting all the way to the playoffs is not by itself evidence they were not TRYING to win.
The second issue is that the club AFTER FAILING with the FA focus, began a completely new paradigm for improvement. Instead of relying on high priced FA "saviors" (Sexson, Beltre, Silva, Washburn), the club is "attempting" to develop prospects internally, and fill out the rest of the roster with relatively inexpensive short-term FAs and modest level trades. Treating 2004-present as a single entity makes no sense given the evidence. It is two distinctly different periods and methodologies being employed.
Finally, the "expectation" that simply deciding to TRY this (prospect development) approach would make them inherently good at it from day one is on the face of it pretty silly. When the organization had not actually really attempted any significant prospect development (hitting side) for a decade, it is understandable (and predictable), that they were likely to make mistakes (keep Smoak, dump Carp), and mishandle development in the majors (Smoak, Ackley Carp all failing).
Will they learn from the mistakes and get better? That is a legitimate question. But, 2013 is almost ceraintly THE singlularly best season ever in regards to the quality of the imported (stop-gap) hitters assembled by Jack. *IF* any of the big 3 prospects had broken out, imagine the impact on the offense. *IF* the injuries had not kept Guti on the sidelines (and kept Saunders in the lineup throughout his slump, when it is pretty clear some off days might really be beneficial), how different would the season be? *IF* Erasmo *OR* Hultzen doesn't hit the DL ... how much better the rotation would be?
My perspective. If a team is "trying" to win, what you will see is change. The results will be VOLATILE. You'll have ups AND downs.
Organizations that are NOT trying ... will simply continue to win about 70 games year after year unless they happen to luck into a random good season.
But Seattle is NOT the Cubs or the Pirates or the Royals. They (IMHO) appear to be moving in the direction of Oakland (in terms of player development), BUT, they have more financial resources. So, *IF* they can improve their PD a bit more *THEN* they can potentially push through to the next level.
I don't doubt that you are substantially correct. The Mariners front office has "tried" to win, and post-2003 are on their second attempt. Of course, all hinges on the true content of "try."
The commitment and success of the Mariners' "trying" is somewhat akin to many attempts to lose weight. Inherent hindrances in the lifestyle, preferences, habits, comfort zones, family context, etc. make it extremely difficult to win, just like in MLB. It takes sustained, prioritized commitment to make anything other than temporary progress. It takes a willingness to get out of your comfort zone. And sometimes it just takes bull-dogged determination, a willingness to do everything possible to make it happen, no matter how much it hurts. It takes a commitment not to settle for "trying." Rehearsing this makes me chuckle, because I'm all too familiar with unsuccessfully "trying" to lose weight. But then again, losing weight is not my chosen business, my field of endeavor.
The M's have chosen to compete in MLB. They are "trying" to win. It's just that they consider annual tidy books more important. I have no problem with tidy books, and certainly foolish financial boondoggles are a path to overall failure. But the M's aren't "in it to win it" the same way most other traditionally succesful franchises are in it to win it. At least their record suggests this is the case. They are in a division where three other teams have demonstrated by their record that they are able more often than not to field successful teams, and often field contenders. All three have their share of postseason glory in the last decade with the exception of Oakland, which financially fights with one hand tied behind it's back.
The real question which the rebuild results so far at the MLB level leave open is whether this most recent "try" will have any more success at the MLB level than the previous attempt. As you suggest, "trying" must be wedded to "competence" to have any chance of succceeding. I would add "commitment" as well, and not the sort of commitment that tries only until it starts to hurt or make one uncomfortable.
And I do not necessarily equate trying and commitment to annual payroll. I will say, however, that where a man's treasure is, there is his heart also. Uh, seems I've heard that before. The real question at issue is this: "Where is the Mariners' heart?" Notice that despite their lack of success on the field at the major league level, they have managed all along to maintain profitability. I believe in capitalism. This is legitemate, not inherently evil. But in the case of a high profile civic sport like MLB, and when your business involve the passions and hopes of local fans, this is not the only consideration...unless it IS.
Look at the record. The M's have been eminently successful at that to which they have truly committed themselves, and eminently unsuccessful at what they have merely "tried."
I, like you, Sandy, would like to see my team be more than just "not Pittsburgh or Kansas City."
Absolutely not.
I've seen any number of cases where fully committed people have failed miserably at any number of endeavors.
You note Texas has won this decade. But, from 2000-2009, (a 10 year span), they didn't win anything. They were OBVIOUSLY fully committed when they broke the bank to pay AROD. What did that net them? 4 straight years of last place in the division.
After the 2003 season they dumped AROD. Like Seattle, they had a surprise 89 win season immediately, (but no post season). But after dropping the show-me-the-money plan in Texas ... how many years did it take THEM to reach the playoffs? 2004-2009 (no luck). That's 6 years of failure - and in the 7th year AFTER dumping AROD, they finally made the playoffs.
So, my question to you is --- how much of that time between 1999 and 2010 was Texas not "commited" to winning?
Yes, Anaheim started getting to the post season early this century, (under Disney ownership).
And clearly, the choices to sign players like Pujols and Hamilton shows commitment to winning. But, right now, this instant, the Angels have missed the playoffs three years, and despite spending so much on these highly sought after players, they currently sit 1/2 game behind Seattle.
===========
Honestly, I agree in part with the idea that you need commitment and competence. But, it is a competitive industry in a direct way VERY different from other industries. It ALSO takes some luck. You can be committed and competent ... and still lose (sometimes). Now, if you are commited AND competent, I do believe you will eventually win. But, bad teams have good years, (Seattle '07 and '09), and sometimes good teams have bad years. (Tampa this year ranks best 5th in the AL in fewest hits allowed - but 5th worst in runs allowed. xFIP puts them ranked 5th in the AL. But, I digress).
The trick as an analyst is to identify the outliers as such. It's also, not an easy task.
Commitment does not guarantee success. It just increases the likelihood a whole lot.
I still say the Mariners are consistently successful at what they are truly comitted to, their consistently tidy financial success. What they are marginally commited to, they have yet to be even marginally successful. At least that's my evaluation of it.